They are probably not anonymous just written by the same person and they labeled it "anonymous".

Or not.

-Nam

On a serious note, modern and reliable methods of language analysis allow us to see various authors of the bible. There are many good sites that speak of the Yahwist, The Priestly source, the Elohist and the Redactor in the Pentateuch.

We can see that Moses never wrote the Pentateuch as he reports his own death and refers to himself often in the third person.

In the New Testament, The Acts were probably written by the same person who wrote Luke, although Luke also copied from Mark in the Gospel of Luke.

Each of the Gospel writers had his own agenda and pursued it, hence the contradictions. It must be borne in mind that there was no broadband interwebs because Jesus had not invented them yet, and, as such writers were writing both in isolation and from various manuscripts scattered about a land filled with thieves and bandits and without a reliable bus service.

On top of that, manuscripts were like gold and few had access to them. To give you an idea, one 15th century Lord in the UK was described as "most educated" as he had 40 books in his library - not a sign that he could read, but that he had 40 books.

Those who came to record events at the time in Palestine were few and far between - Josephus was the most famous. Unfortunately, Josephus did not say everything that the Christian Church wanted him to, so, lying bastards that they are, the Church added things to his writings to coincide with the Bible.

And herein are all difficulties in establishing Christ as a real figure - there is not the slightest reliable evidence for a man who raised people from the dead and, as he died, earthquakes, darkness and resurrected saints were all seen... or not.

In the Pauline books, probably only 6 or 7 of them were written by one person who was either Paul or, more likely, his scribe - the rest are of unknown authorship.

You might like to search for and download, "WHO WROTE THE BIBLE?" BY Washington Gladden - written about 100 years ago; a free, but a good, read.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2012, 02:48:12 PM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

This has always made me wonder (slightly a reason in posting this topic, sort of a "back thought"), would it be easier to figure out if Immanuel[1] existed during that time period, or the name given to him? Well, I am not thinking the latter...

Wiki's a good starting point: The implication is that whoever wrote Matthew, was desperately trying to link Jesus and Immanuel.

Isaiah's "prophecy" was no prophecy, as it appears that the book was written after the "prophecy" had come to pass.

You will see also that there are 2 other significant names in addition to Immanuel, "God is with us" - Shear-jashub, meaning "a remnant shall return"; and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "the spoil speeds, the prey hastens". But these are later described as Isaiah's sons... anyway. It' all there in Wiki and the Bible - Immanuel, plays no part in the New Testament and I would think that although there might well have been several people of that name around the time of Christ, they are so insignificant that there would be no record.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

^Is that a question, or a statement? If a question: yes, it's possible. Or, it's possible he could be an agglomeration of many people.

-Nam

The latter is not only possible, it is highly probable.

In folk tales we often have characters appearing - Robin Hood, is one, The Mullah Nasruddin is another.

They are essentially the same as the subject in the Irish/Polish/Mexican/whatever joke. "Murphy walks into a bar and..." Murphy is not real, he is a symbol, a hero of that type of person. Yet who in 1000 years will take up Murphy's wisdom? No one but he will be remembered.

Robin Hood, by championing the poor, allowed the criticisms of John I to surface and be broadcast; The Mullah Nasruddin pointed out the stupidities of life and offered an alternative philosophy. At future times, these two were used by persons who wished to oppose something yet did not want to appear to be saying it themselves. They also come in narratives, which were the Youtube of their day.

It appears to me that Jesus was a character built to embody opposition to the priestly classes, to champion the poor, to offer folk wisdom, to fall in line with previous predictions. As such, he is, as you suggest nothing more than "an agglomeration of many people."

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

There is more sole in my flippy floppy's than was ever in the batman jesus. The "proof" lived with the same scoundrels who bloodied googled earth with that of children and women, men and grandmas, etc. Why would we trust murderers to show the path of righteousness? WHY? WHY? WHY?

There is more sole in my flippy floppy's than was ever in the batman jesus. The "proof" lived with the same scoundrels who bloodied googled earth with that of children and women, men and grandmas, etc. Why would we trust murderers to show the path of righteousness? WHY? WHY? WHY?

it's kinda hard to argue with Jesus....

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

If you have in your possession empirical evidence of Jesus, we are all waiting for you to post it. Note: the Bible is not empirical evidence. It's considered "historical" evidence, which is not the same thing.

Remember when PBS or some show kept showing finds where they said this could be Jesus' box, he might have been married, etc.? Anytime something old is found it has to have been Jesus. Hell, I bet they find Jesus' dog, Skippy, collar sometime soon. Everybody in Nazareth (a town that did not exist until 70AD) loved Skippy. Skippy did all kinds of tricks for Jesus. The one the towns people enjoyed the most was when Jesus had Skippy play dead. Problem was he would not get up for 3 days.

I am not asking for Historical evidence, or for people to use the Bible as evidence[2], I am looking for empirical evidence.

If an argument is presented as to how, say, Plato existed or not, I feel that's going off-topic. This isn't about Plato but Jesus.

Some atheists state that they believe Jesus existed; I used to be one of them. I find that to be a "latch" of sorts. Meaning: those of us who are former Christians still hold on to certain things of our former beliefs, even if we actually don't believe in them anymore.

For such a great man[3] to have existed there should be some sort of empirical evidence, shouldn't there?

yeah Nam... blah..It is dire situation but you don't realize that Jesus of the Bible exists in the Bible and elsewhere.Heck, carve the letters Jesus of the Bible anywhere and there Jesus of the Bible is."Evidence of Jesus?" which one?

« Last Edit: December 19, 2012, 09:55:24 AM by none »

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.

Do you understand the differince between "empirical" evidence and "historical" evidence? If you read the other comments you'd see that scribblings on walls has been deemed not to be viable evidence since anyone can scribble anything on a wall.

Also, the question also becomes: did people know Jesus during his time as Jesus or his actual name of Immanuel?

Do you understand the differince between "empirical" evidence and "historical" evidence? If you read the other comments you'd see that scribblings on walls has been deemed not to be viable evidence since anyone can scribble anything on a wall.

Also, the question also becomes: did people know Jesus during his time as Jesus or his actual name of Immanuel?

See the problem?

-Nam

I apologize for not agreeing with the difference between "empirical" evidence and "historical" evidence being rational and reasonable.please forgive me.I am still trying to answer this question "Is there any empirical[1] evidence that Jesus of the Bible existed?" using empirical evidence.if my objective has changed please let me know.your humble colleague in Jainism.btw what is the secret handshake? I am certain I will die and need to know before that scheduled death.is that a problem?

Logged

Fuck the Bible, you can't even eat in it.

First I told my imaginary friend about Jesus, then I told Jesus about my imaginary friend.